Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
IFAD – Uganda Cooperation 1997-2011 Country Programme Evaluation. National Roundtable Workshop Co-organized by the Government of Uganda and IFAD Kampala, 12 July 2012. What is a Country Programme Evaluation (CPE)?. Undertaken by IFAD’s Independent Office of Evaluation (IOE)
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Country Programme Evaluation
National Roundtable Workshop
Co-organized by the Government of Uganda and IFAD
Kampala, 12 July 2012
Undertaken by IFAD’s Independent Office of Evaluation (IOE)
Assessment of the performance of project portfolio, non-lending activities and Country Strategic Opportunities Programme (COSOP)
Provides input to formulation of next COSOP
Comprises desk work, self-assessments, extended field mission (July 2011), peer review, comments by stakeholders, revisions, audit trail
Very comprehensive and useful self-assessments received from MoFPED, ESA and PIUs
Final stage: NRTW, Agreement at Completion Point (ACP) and publication & communication
14 projects supported by 16 loans and one BSF grant
Total approved IFAD lending US$294 million ~ 21% of total project costs
First 5 loans (1981-94) supported projects initiated and supervised by the World Bank
Nine projects, since 1997, supporting 4 areas:
local government executed agriculture and rural development, two tandems: DDSP-DLSP, AAMP-CAIIP
vegetable oil sub-sector: one tandem VODP 1 & 2
agricultural advisory services & research: NAADS and ATAAS
rural finance - RFSP
A group of rural poor assisted by DSLP to get land titles
Can we trust agricultural GDP data?
Relevant designs but since 2006 issues of adapting to policy changes
Effectiveness moderately satisfactory but recent challenges
Improvement in some efficiency indicators
Rural poverty impact assessed moderately satisfactory, best for household income and assets
Sustainability is a serious issue
Innovations are few and scaling up is limited
Significant IFAD investment and participation in policy dialogue during early PMA period. Less inclusive policy dialogue processes after 2006. Agenda of 2004 COSOP defined in terms of “IFAD’s opposition to government policies”.
Knowledge management neglected till recently where major investments have been made
Partnerships with Government, World Bank and AfDB function well and useful partnerships with PSOs and CSOs have been developed. However, IFAD and AfDB need to make joint supervision of CAIIP.
Country grants overall relevant and effective
Relevant 1998 and 2004 COSOPs, but some strategic re-orientations since 2006/07 conflict with IFAD policies, e.g. on Rural Finance
Many relevant elements, but only VOPD, applying a value chain approach, ensures effective coherence
Lending pipeline 2004 COSOP not realised ($18 m for agri marketing/processing programme and $25 m for integrated community development in northern Uganda)
4 months before expiry of PBA period 2007-2009, $37 m of the PBA remained uncommitted – last moment solution: supplementary loans/grants for DLSP (20 m) and CAIIP (17 m)
Policy dialogue agenda largely defined in terms of IFAD’s disagreement with government and no budget for policy work
No regular COSOP reviews and revisions
Include major support for northern Uganda; either IFAD should join muti-donor support for PRDP2 or go alone with innovative programme in one or two districts, but aligned to PRDP2
Replicate experiences from VODP – value chain approach and PPP – and apply to other sub-sectors/commodities (dairy, animal feed industry ? ?)
Define realistic and joint policy agenda, and identify/allocate resources required for its implementation
Improve project results – ensure synergies, capacity development, environmental management, sustainability, scaling up
Functional/workload analysis to determine staff requirements and division of labour in IFAD’s country programme management
Theme 1: Opportunities and challenges for developing public private partnerships in smallholder agriculture
Theme 2: Geographic and sub-sector options for future IFAD-Government partnerships, including IFAD’s contribution to regional integration
Theme 3: Strengthening results by developing a coherent and integrated country programme